2012

[Inui]

Assuming you've been paying attention to the world around you even the slightest bit (more wars, no new jobs, still in a recession people don't want to even admit) and have even the most basic knowledge of economics (such as "printing tons and tons of money causes too much inflation"), you won't be voting for Obama in 2012 and are hoping the Republicans can pick someone you can tolerate (so, not Bachmann).

I am an avid supporter of Ron Paul. I've contributed financially to his campaign (~$85), attend Ron Paul gatherings in my state, try to help out the Campaign for Liberty in my area, and hope to go to New Hampshire or South Carolina for him in the near future (the two first primaries).

Just wondering if anyone else here gives enough of a shit about the world outside of their doors (or even inside) to have a favorite in the GOP field right now. Considering we are crazy youths, I wouldn't be surprised to see more Ron Paul people here given his stance on marijuana (make it legal), war (bring the troops home), and taxes (keep your money).

I could write essays about every candidate and their voting records in Congress, accomplishments (or lack of) while in whatever offices they held, and all that stuff, but I'm hoping people don't require that.

[peener weener]

woo not giving two shits

[peener weener]

You are every corrupt politician's best friend.

I'm not American. I don't even live in the US. I think I have a right not to care whatever way you people choose to screw your country. Then again it's stupid I posted in this thread at all.

EDIT: I guess I should care. Argentina thinks in dollars after all.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Barioth

[Original Alear]

Sometimes it is hard to read posts from people you have a sense of respect for and take them seriously. Perhaps you will feel the same way in response to mine.

I would like to hear why you think that inflation, jobs for the sake of jobs, a recession, is bad. Why is growth good? Why is a larger GDP good? As for the wars, there's some jobs you're looking for, IN THE MILITARY, and the pubs have gotten us into wars so I don't see why voting for the GOP is likely to get us out of wars.

Additionally, printing more money is not the job of the president, it's the job of the fed, and I'm pretty sure that the last two fed chairmen were selected by republican presidents (tell me if I'm wrong, really, I'm not checking because I doubt it even occurred to you that Obama isn't the one ordering the printing of the money so go do your own legwork mister I know politics better than anyone on serenes).

Ron Paul wants us back on the gold standard, an idea I don't think is particularly good but essentially misses the point of making the currency based around relatively renewable resources. Electronic forms of credit can be sustained by green fuels, especially solar or nuclear fusion should that ever come to pass and should it be safe, as well as they can be by coal.

When all is said and done, I hope your $85 done to the Ron Paul party does Ron some good, because I sincerely doubt it's doing you any by the time 2012 rolls around.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Blue Mars

[Zkirsche]

The first paragraph is a terrible oversimplification of what has happened in the obama years.

more wars

You mean libya? Enforcing a no-fly zone is hardly a major war. He also recalled many troops from iraq as well.

no new jobs

Because you're heavily indebt. This isn't Obama's fault, and it's not really his fault that it isn't over yet. Most of the world is still recovering (with the eurozone being in crisis and all) or trying to, and quite frankly I'd have been surprised if anyone could've stopped these events.

have even the most basic knowledge of economics (such as "printing tons and tons of money causes too much inflation")

And leaving the economy in it's vast debt would cause too much deflation.

marijuana (make it legal), war (bring the troops home), and taxes (keep your money).

Making marijuana illegal is a minor point at best, if you're electing someone because of that then you seriously shouldn't vote. There are far more pressing issues in this world than whether or not the US president will let you get high.

Obama brought the troops home.

Unfortunately, the government needs money, cutting taxes will only worsen that.

I would like to hear why you think that inflation, jobs for the sake of jobs, a recession, is bad.

So people have, you know, a better way of living.

Edited September 7, 2011 by kirsche

[Anouleth]

I am an avid supporter of Ron Paul. I've contributed financially to his campaign (~$85), attend Ron Paul gatherings in my state, try to help out the Campaign for Liberty in my area, and hope to go to New Hampshire or South Carolina for him in the near future (the two first primaries).

Well, you're wasting your time. Ron Paul is never, ever, ever going to be president. If he wants to be president, you know what Ron Paul should do? Run for Governor. Or at least Senator. He is never going to get anywhere as long as he sits in his backwater district.

[Hero]

Funny enough that you should mention Ron Paul. I haven't contributed financially to his campaign (I'm not a libertarian), but I have been following its developments as much as is possible for an outsider with the media blackout and I plan to vote for him in the GOP primary.

What I like about Paul is that his political platform and methodology are logically consistent and have not changed over the years. Based on the information publicly available, he appears to be the presidential hopeful least likely to compromise his ideals and slide into corruption the moment he moves into Washington (similarly to President Obama in his first months) as well as the clear best choice from a long-term financial point of view. And if you think it's a bad idea to base political decisions on financial concerns, I invite you to reconcile this with China's successes under that paradigm.

But more importantly than all that, Paul is coming from outside the monolithic two-party system. At this point Rick Perry's going to take the Republican nomination unless there's another major convulsion, but every step toward taking down that complex is a step toward real democracy in North America.

If you still disagree with me and think I shouldn't vote for Ron Paul in the primary, post your reasons and I'll be glad to refute you.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Hero

[Original Alear]

So people have, you know, a better way of living.

Ooh, that's right. The economy is a magical thing that makes our lives sparkly. Was I wupposed to wink at you and nudge you in a conspiratorial fashion in response to that? All inflation does is destroy savings. Income and even currency value rise to catch up with it assuming a relatively attentive government/private sector - see the German hyperinflation of the 20s - evening the balance a little bit. We all like equality, don't we *EvilGrin*.

As for jobs, do all jobs do things which actually improve the lifestyle of the job-doer or the person being serviced? A recession is a decline in activity which may be unsustainable in the long run - if we look past our own lives and into the future, should we believe in its existence and value it, we should decide perhaps with a little more hesitance if we need the things we consume unsustainably and whether the things we think are sustainable really are. An attempt to create jobs is really an attempt to create supply/demand where there may (note may, I'm not saying that government creation of jobs is inherently bad) well be NONE.

If you still disagree with me and think I shouldn't vote for Ron Paul in the primary, post your reasons and I'll be glad to refute you.

Let's see. I don't see why having a political platform and methodology based on logic and that hasn't changed is a good thing. Logic? What justifies it? ITSELF! Inherently corrupt is logic. I'm not sure why we want someone who will not compromise his ideals, except it makes it easier to pin blame when something goes wrong and reward good when something goes right. Unless you agree with Inui, you have nothing backing you up on a long term financial view. I don't follow China but I'm not sure why one data point is making you croon for finance. Finally, what's so important about coming from outside the two party system, besides making us feel good?

Edited September 7, 2011 by Blue Mars

[Hero]

Well Kirsche, I didn't look that closely at your post before writing mine but I'm astonished now that now that I am taking a look. It clearly shows a lack of real understanding of the current situation. It's quite embarrassing, really.

You mean libya? Enforcing a no-fly zone is hardly a major war. He also recalled many troops from iraq as well.

What is happening in Libya (in English names of countries are usually spelled with a capital letter out of respect) if not a war? Officially it's called a "kinetic action", but is that not just a euphemism for war? More than 1000 people have been killed, so it more than meets the definition of a war in international relations. Does it not count if the people who died had a different religion from you, or a different skin color?

By the way, I'm not just asking this question because I'm interested in debate, not because I like typing. If you really do come back to this topic, I'd like to see you go through point by point the way you did with Inui's post and give me answers to all my questions.

As for your point about Iraq, President Obama promised that he would end the US occupation in that country in his first year. Although he has withdrawn some troops, they have just gone to Afghanistan and the occupation in both countries continues to this day. Based on his earlier promises, I don't see how this can be called anything but a failure.

Because you're heavily indebt. This isn't Obama's fault, and it's not really his fault that it isn't over yet. Most of the world is still recovering (with the eurozone being in crisis and all) or trying to, and quite frankly I'd have been surprised if anyone could've stopped these events.

This is one place where I can't disagree with you completely. The current global economic crisis would not be nearly so acute if it were not for the blind policies of previous presidents. But how can you turn that into apologetics for the current president when there has been no substantial change in economic and financial policy under his administration? Bill Clinton and George W. Bush may have laid most of the foundations for the collapse, but that doesn't mean others didn't contribute as well.

I don't know if you were following the news back in 2008 and 2009, but if you were you'll remember that one of the first things President Obama did after his inauguration was to continue the proud Bushian tradition of giving his biggest campaign contributors all the money they asked for in so-called bailouts or stimulus packages. I could go into this more in depth, but that would take a while because it's complicated. In the meantime, I'll give you this article from the mainstream media as proof that I'm not pulling anything out of my ass: 8 Trillion Dollar Bailout.

Do you think that Ron Paul, who strongly opposes frivolous government spending and corporate bailouts, would have done nearly as much as Obama to worsen this crisis if he had been elected in 2008? Forget about their intentions, all that matters is what policies they put into practice.

And leaving the economy in it's vast debt would cause too much deflation.

What's preferable, a little deflation or massive inflation? It's the latter that's going to happen when you print trillions of dollars, even if you never give the dollars to the people who have to use it to pay for everyday necessities. On the other hand, a little deflation would benefit consumers in the US since it would strengthen the dollar and the US is primarily an importer country. Only private financial institutions are hurt by inflation.

Making marijuana illegal is a minor point at best, if you're electing someone because of that then you seriously shouldn't vote. There are far more pressing issues in this world than whether or not the US president will let you get high.

First off, Ron Paul is in favor of legalizing cannabis, not making it illegal. In fact, he's in favor of ending the drug war altogether and you can't really address one piece of the drug war without addressing the rest.

Second, why should people who want to see the drug war ended not be allowed to vote? After its poorly thought-out military engagements abroad and the endemic "quid pro quo" style corruption among Republicans and Democrats, the drug war is one of the biggest follies bankrupting the United States today. And when you look at law and justice specifically, it's by far the biggest. I recommend you check out this page called the Drug War Clock. It gives a few useful statistics and barely even scratches the surface.

As a medical marijuana patient myself, I already have safe access and would likely be hurt financially by the short-term effects of full legalization/industry regulation. But I support it nonetheless because nobody deserves to be persecuted for any reason.

Obama brought the troops home.

Who are "the troops"? The US military still maintains almost a thousand bases in more than a hundred other countries' territory all around the world and almost half a million military personnel are stationed at them. Don't believe my statistics? Check Google or Wikipedia for yourself.

If by "the troops" you meant active-duty US military personnel, the opposite of your sentence above is true.

Unfortunately, the government needs money, cutting taxes will only worsen that.

What good are taxes to the government if the government wastes all the money from them in "stimulus packages", corrupt military contracts, private planes for officials and in general every unproductive use you can imagine? Better to cut frivolous spending than to bleed the people dry for the benefit of a small elite.

So people have, you know, a better way of living.

A better way of living? But the standard of living has lowered during the time of the Obama administration and even if other factors contributed to that President Obama is still far from inculpable for it!

Again, I'd appreciate a prompt response to all of my questions if you plan to keep reading and posting in this thread. I hope this post has done something to clear your misconceptions.

Alright Blue Mars, you responded to my initial post while I was replying to another one but I'll deal with yours now.

Let's see. I don't see why having a political platform and methodology based on logic and that hasn't changed is a good thing. Logic? What justifies it? ITSELF! Inherently corrupt is logic.

Logic can work in any number of directions, and you're right that on the individual level if people are motivated by self-interest that corruption is logical. That's why it's so widespread today.

My point would have been better stated if I had said that his political platform and methodology is logical, or better yet logically consistent, since its ultimate ideological basis is Libertarianism. His logic is Libertarian logic, which is obviously going to be different from the "logic" used by others in Washington.

My real point with that comment is that we know what all of his positions are and signs seem to indicate that they won't change with the circumstances. I edited my original post to reflect this clarification.

I'm not sure why we want someone who will not compromise his ideals, except it makes it easier to pin blame when something goes wrong and reward good when something goes right.

Firmness and consistency is extremely important in political candidates. Without a clear plan, what are they going to do when they take office? A presidency especially is what you make of it.

In the end it's usually all talk during campaign season, but in Paul's case his unique record from his time in Congress shows that he's serious.

Unless you agree with Inui, you have nothing backing you up on a long term financial view. I don't follow China but I'm not sure why one data point is making you croon for finance.

I don't disagree with Inui's first post. Although I'm not a Libertarian, I think that Libertarianism and Ron Paul interprets it is a huge step forward from the muddled and special interests-driven economic policy of the Democrats and Republicans.

My point about China was to reinforce that a country that makes decisions which are usually based entirely on its pocketbook can reach great success in an integrated global economy.

Finally, what's so important about coming from outside the two party system, besides making us feel good?

Ending stagnation and corruption by opening the political field to people with new ideas, and ideas that go against the establishment. In other words, the point is democracy.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Narga_Rocks

[Original Alear]

Firmness and consistency is extremely important in political candidates. Without a clear plan, what are they going to do when they take office? A presidency especially is what you make of it.

This seems to express a kind of association between what a politician does and what a politician says. A platform is, or is not, a politician's agenda, depending upon the politician, and I do not see why a politician's open agenda is somehow necessarily better than a hidden one. Of course, the POTUS is under so much scrutiny that it is very hard for him to have a particularly secret agenda, except insofar as one believes it is or is not possible to construct a credible agenda from a series of actions.

Ending stagnation and corruption by opening the political field to people with new ideas, and ideas that go against the establishment. In other words, the point is democracy.

There are no such thing as new ideas, and I see nothing inherently wrong with stagnation when we have no destination in mind but more material wealth as soon as we can get it, or other economic factors which are not good or bad in and of themselves.

[Anouleth]

What is happening in Libya (in English names of countries are usually spelled with a capital letter out of respect) if not a war? Officially it's called a "kinetic action", but is that not just a euphemism for war? More than 1000 people have been killed, so it more than meets the definition of a war in international relations. Does it not count if the people who died had a different religion from you, or a different skin color?

I wasn't really aware that the definition of a war involved a minimum number of deaths. I mean, obviously what is going on is a war between pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces, but I don't think that it only began to constitute a war once a magic number of people had been killed. (Although I agree that the phrase "kinetic action" is pretty ridiculous.)

However, the fact is that the United States is not the principal aggressor in this war. Rather, they are providing military support to the anti-Gaddafi side. If Obama had sat on his hands, the war would have still happened. So I don't really think that Inui is right to imply that Obama is to blame for "more war". Perhaps, by intervening, the US might even have shortened the duration of the war by hastening Gaddafi's defeat.

I don't know if you were following the news back in 2008 and 2009, but if you were you'll remember that one of the first things President Obama did after his inauguration was to continue the proud Bushian tradition of giving his biggest campaign contributors all the money they asked for in so-called bailouts or stimulus packages. I could go into this more in depth, but that would take a while because it's complicated. In the meantime, I'll give you this article from the mainstream media as proof that I'm not pulling anything out of my ass: 8 Trillion Dollar Bailout.

Do you think that Ron Paul, who strongly opposes frivolous government spending and corporate bailouts, would have done nearly as much as Obama to worsen this crisis if he had been elected in 2008? Forget about their intentions, all that matters is what policies they put into practice.

I don't know if Obama worsened the crisis. I was under the impression that figures actually showed that without the stimulus, unemployment would be even worse in the US. Although I agree that overall, Obama hasn't really done much that wasn't seen from Bush, and I really wouldn't be surprised if in that 8 trillion dollars, a significant proportion was spent inefficiently.

What good are taxes to the government if the government wastes all the money from them in "stimulus packages", corrupt military contracts, private planes for officials and in general every unproductive use you can imagine? Better to cut frivolous spending than to bleed the people dry for the benefit of a small elite.

It's not all unproductive, since a lot of the federal budget is redistributed through Social Security or Medicare.

[Lord Raven]

and taxes (keep your money).

I'm not sure why people insist on decreasing taxes then blaming our president for our debt situation. I think brackets should be closer to the way they were in the 50s and 60s because maybe then something could get done.

I'm voting Democrat at any rate, because the GOP are all nuts and the Libertarian party tend to be filled with the GOP rejects (so they're nuts but they definitely won't get elected). It's pretty sad when the vote comes down to the lesser of two evils.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Original Alear]

I do more good outside the polling booth than in it. And I don't do a lot of good out of it.

[Hero]

This seems to express a kind of association between what a politician does and what a politician says. A platform is, or is not, a politician's agenda, depending upon the politician, and I do not see why a politician's open agenda is somehow necessarily better than a hidden one.

OK, you got me. A politician's open agenda is not necessarily better than a hidden one. But that's how it turns out to be 95% of the time. Why would a politician lie about his or her aims and plans without cause?

Of course, the POTUS is under so much scrutiny that it is very hard for him to have a particularly secret agenda, except insofar as one believes it is or is not possible to construct a credible agenda from a series of actions.

There's more than just actions available for analysis, everything about an administration can be interpreted to mean almost anything. I don't know that any amount of analysis and interpretation can "construct" somebody else's agenda though.

As for high levels of scrutiny making public officials unlikely to have secret agendas, if that was your intended meaning I disagree with you. You imply that every idea or theory that people form about the government which doesn't jive with the official line is false.

There are no such thing as new ideas,

Maybe there are no such thing as new ideas, but that seems like it would be very difficult to prove. Regardless, I think we can agree that people come up with innovative solutions to old problems all the time.

and I see nothing inherently wrong with stagnation when we have no destination in mind but more material wealth as soon as we can get it, or other economic factors which are not good or bad in and of themselves.

I think stagnation is a big problem, when speaking of countries. Think of the later history of the Soviet Union, or the Ottoman Empire, or any number of other gigantic countries you can't find on the map today. States need to stay competitive to survive, even ones that are big and powerful for the time being. How can a stagnant country adapt effectively to new challenges?

Karl Marx said that politics follow economics, and as controversial as he's become today I think it's hard to disagree with that one (at least in principle; Causality is never perfectly clear.)

[Original Alear]

OK, you got me. A politician's open agenda is not necessarily better than a hidden one. But that's how it turns out to be 95% of the time. Why would a politician lie about his or her aims and plans without cause?

There are all sorts of causes nowadays, primarily that to share the agenda is to allow another to diffuse it.

I don't know that any amount of analysis and interpretation can "construct" somebody else's agenda though.

They can't actually construct an agenda that the person will then follow, but they can construct one that other's might believe is the person's real agenda.

You imply that every idea or theory that people form about the government which doesn't jive with the official line is false.

I'm not sure how, please explain.

I think stagnation is a big problem, when speaking of countries. Think of the later history of the Soviet Union, or the Ottoman Empire, or any number of other gigantic countries you can't find on the map today. States need to stay competitive to survive, even ones that are big and powerful for the time being. How can a stagnant country adapt effectively to new challenges?

Does the state breathe? Does the state feel? Does the state consume? What is the state? Anyway, it is time for, in the world of MAD and the UN, to begin building towards a better and more stagnant world. What are we afraid of? That god will be disappointed with us and wipe us from the board like an angry child?

[Hero]

I wasn't really aware that the definition of a war involved a minimum number of deaths. I mean, obviously what is going on is a war between pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces, but I don't think that it only began to constitute a war once a magic number of people had been killed.

It's fair enough if you think that the "1000 deaths" rule is ridiculous, that was my first impression on hearing about it too. It's a distinction primarily for study, since without a lower limit you could call just about any occasion with fighting involved a war even though most share few characteristics with what are generally considered to be wars.

The reason I brought up an academic definition of war was because I thought it was absurd to argue that President Obama's decision to attack Gaddafi's government was anything other than getting involved in another war. (i.e. his presidency brought "more wars")

However, the fact is that the United States is not the principal aggressor in this war. Rather, they are providing military support to the anti-Gaddafi side. If Obama had sat on his hands, the war would have still happened. So I don't really think that Inui is right to imply that Obama is to blame for "more war". Perhaps, by intervening, the US might even have shortened the duration of the war by hastening Gaddafi's defeat.

The US isn't the one who started the fighting, but I would argue that because the NATO strikes have amounted to (a lot) more than 1000 casualties the involvement is just as significant as starting another war would have been.

The only way your argument works is if the US has an obligation to intervene when a dictator is killing his own people. George W. Bush said that, but it's obvious that nobody takes it too seriously except as an after-the-fact justification. Why were parallel strikes not launched in Syria, where the regime is far more murderous? Or Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, Gaza, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, the list goes on practically forever.

I don't know if Obama worsened the crisis. I was under the impression that figures actually showed that without the stimulus, unemployment would be even worse in the US.

In the short term, yes, employment would be worse. But perhaps the difference is less significant than you might think.

My question is, wouldn't that money have been better spent in another way?

It's not all unproductive, since a lot of the federal budget is redistributed through Social Security or Medicare.

The point is that a very large amount of the federal budget is squandered. I'm not saying that we should cut Social Security, Medicare or education the way some Republicans are. I think that there are any number of ways the government could save money without austerity measures that directly hurt the population. For example reworking the military's procurement procedures to cut out corruption, which could save dozens of billions of dollars every year on its own if done correctly and universally implemented.

I'll get to the other posts tonight or maybe tomorrow.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Hero

[Lord Raven]

My question is, wouldn't that money have been better spent in another way?

Kindly tell us how, Thunk.

I could write essays about every candidate and their voting records in Congress, accomplishments (or lack of) while in whatever offices they held, and all that stuff, but I'm hoping people don't require that.

I'd love to see you do it. Edited September 10, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

Actually, I am going to vote for Obama, unless a better candidate rolls along.

I don't think it can really be debated that Ron Paul is the best GOP candidate, but I don't agree with some of his policies and ideas.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/22/ron-paul-would-sign-planned-parenthood-funding-ban/ (among other things)

I want social programs, a more balanced budget, higher [income] taxes on the $250k+ (I want 50%, not 33%), more government regulation of corporations, a very large cut in military spending, and universal healthcare (as a major social program). He doesn't want most of these things. He is doing very well in my opinion, though.

EDIT: On taxes, 91% like under Eisenhower ftw? haha

Edited September 8, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Lord Raven]

EDIT: On taxes, 91% like under Eisenhower ftw? haha

Yeah, I scoff at anyone who complains about any sort of tax increase because of how fucking pathetic they are. Not that anyone understand economics anyway, nor do people have any sense of giving back to the government.

I still don't understand how people don't get the inherent flaw of private anything. I know this was sort of about the primaries (the OP really doesn't make it clear whether or not he's referring to primaries or specifically the presidential election or both) but the GOP's view in trusting entirely in the private industry is inherently flawed. We work like dogs in America and have absolutely nothing to fall back on because of this bullshit about cynicism towards the government. The Republicans of course only fuel that some more because... they themselves can make more money and be better off.

We get like two weeks of vacation per year, and not everyone has the resources or ability to gain jobs "easily" because it's far more complicated than "go to school, get a job, get paid." I'm not one of those bullshit "it's all about who you know" sort of people (it is valid to some extent but it's not entirely accurate) but it is extremely hard to go through all of that and extremely hard sometimes to even make a living despite going through that shit. On top of competition; I can't be the only one who finds it sickening to compete with others for essentially better lifestyles. Not that I'd want everyone to get a job that's being wanted, but not leaving the "loser" in the dust could be extremely helpful.

That doesn't even get into just why the lower class pleas for more. They're not lazy, stupid, or anything; many of them actually couldn't even afford college let alone community college, nor do they have the ability to get a job nor do they, by any stretch of anything, have the ability to have a job while going to school. College is some of the most stressful times of your life, and it's 4 years of expensive-ass hell that leads to a vicious cycle where poor people will always get screwed out of financial aid and can't even go to college and what-have-you. It sucks dick and it's absolutely *awful* how generalized that argument in favor of capitalism is. My dad made around 50K/yr after a couple years of 100K/yr and then down to unemployment checks for 2011- I'd be surprised if he actually hit 5 figures in 2011, but it made finding a new business a pain in the ass simply because he didn't have the funds to afford it- and he would not be able to send me off to college unless I got a massive scholarship. (Score! It was entirely luck, too, so don't give me this 'talent' bullshit -- i took around 6 science AP classes in hs but I was still ranked 102 out of a class of 299, though that's also a long story cause somehow my weighted and my unweighted were so close but I was still extremely lucky given the circumstances).

I don't even understand what the GOP's stance is. They preach for freedoms, but they restrict certain social freedoms and base their arguments on Christianity while preaching the first amendment (and oddly enough, if documents as old as the Constitution are so valuable to them, then they should read through the Treaty of Tripoli which even has a line stating that the US is not a Christian nation). They value businesses and money over the welfare of people who were never even given a chance to rise up (and there are a lot more of those people than "moochers"), and their priorities are just skewed. Ron Paul is still apart of the Republican Party, and if they got to McCain they can surely get to Ron Paul (especially if he becomes a presidential candidate and absolutely needs votes -- I've read enough shit on him to make him seem completely batshit anyway). And Ron Paul being president does not change Congress one bit.

Anyone who talks shit about the lower class and says that they don't deserve any of the social programs that cater to them can walk up to me and suck my fucking dick because they obviously don't know how much of a struggle it is to do so. On top of that, our government is chosen by the people and can be overthrown by the people easily, if they are pocketing money or doing anything to our tax dollars- however much we end up paying- then we can overthrow them. Government doesn't exist to make a profit, why can't we trust our insurance to them? Private companies only exist to make a profit, and frankly the fact that once my dad got cancer they quintupled his insurance (and he STILL had to work full time) shows just how terrible this is.

This was just a rant, it has absolutely no structure and I just kinda said whatever came to the brain, but I'm voting Obama in 2012 simply because he is the lesser of two evils (I also like Obama as a person, but his entire party blows). If you want to keep calling us non-Ron Paul people morons and simplifying issues like you have, you are free to do so, but I will bite back. The GOP is fucked no matter who their candidate is, simply due to the nature of their party and how little a crap they give about people contrary to anything they say or you might think.

Sadly we won't hit a European socialist paradise like I dream of :( I still can't believe our debt per person is lower than that of Greece, and they essentially lived the life of kings over there whereas we live like shits.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Anouleth]

It's fair enough if you think that the "1000 deaths" rule is ridiculous, that was my first impression on hearing about it too. It's a distinction primarily for study, since without a lower limit you could call just about any occasion with fighting involved a war even though most share few characteristics with what are generally considered to be wars.

Well, the definitions of war I see online typically define it as armed conflict between two or more organised groups, usually nations or states. I imagine that a proper legal definition would actually specify that it has to be between nations: it doesn't really make sense for a war to be possible without a nation involved.

The reason I brought up an academic definition of war was because I thought it was absurd to argue that President Obama's decision to attack Gaddafi's government was anything other than getting involved in another war. (i.e. his presidency brought "more wars")

Certainly, it brought more war to the US, since he could have stayed out of it.

The US isn't the one who started the fighting, but I would argue that because the NATO strikes have amounted to (a lot) more than 1000 casualties the involvement is just as significant as starting another war would have been.

The degree of the military involvement in Libya, both financially and in terms of risk to US soldiers, is far, far smaller than in Iraq or Afghanistan. And wars are after all, typically fought on the ground.

The only way your argument works is if the US has an obligation to intervene when a dictator is killing his own people. George W. Bush said that, but it's obvious that nobody takes it too seriously except as an after-the-fact justification.

I don't think that the US has an obligation to intervene: but that doesn't mean that intervention isn't a good thing. Why is it such a bad thing for the US to provide support and to encourage the downfall of Qaddafi's regime?

Why were parallel strikes not launched in Syria, where the regime is far more murderous? Or Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, Gaza, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, the list goes on practically forever.

As has been shown in Iraq, the United States cannot single-handedly bring democracy to the Middle East. However, that doesn't mean that they can't support rebellions.

In addition, I highly doubt it would be possible to get UN authorisation for such actions. The US actions in Libya do have UN authorisation, on the other hand. I don't think that the US has the right to act outside of international law.

In the short term, yes, employment would be worse. But perhaps the difference is less significant than you might think.

My question is, wouldn't that money have been better spent in another way?

That's why I said I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't spent efficiently.

The point is that a very large amount of the federal budget is squandered. I'm not saying that we should cut Social Security, Medicare or education the way some Republicans are. I think that there are any number of ways the government could save money without austerity measures that directly hurt the population. For example reworking the military's procurement procedures to cut out corruption, which could save dozens of billions of dollars every year on its own if done correctly and universally implemented.

Even if the US got rid of it's military (something that no Republican would do), it would likely still have a deficit. The US government borrows, iirc, 37 cents of every dollar that it spends. Whereas military expenditure is only 20% of the budget.

[dondon151]

I don't care too much about politics, but I do know enough about US government to realize that the president is generally responsible for very little of the country's legislative policy (nor does he exert control over many factors that we generally attribute to him), and I also know that most of the GOP candidates are a bunch of die-hard Christian idiots.

To be honest, I don't think there will be a big difference in the next 4 years whether we vote GOP or democrat, but I'd rather the face of our nation not be a blustering dumbass.

[Zkirsche]

Ooh, that's right. The economy is a magical thing that makes our lives sparkly. Was I wupposed to wink at you and nudge you in a conspiratorial fashion in response to that? All inflation does is destroy savings. Income and even currency value rise to catch up with it assuming a relatively attentive government/private sector - see the German hyperinflation of the 20s - evening the balance a little bit. We all like equality, don't we *EvilGrin*.

Yes, serverian. Having money makes you happier. FACT. Pure hard fact. Get rid of the rose tinted glasses and see thw world as it is: the homeless are miserable while the rich are mostly happy. You might call it false happiness or some otehr bullshit, but I'm willing to bet money that they are ten times happier than those without jobs, those without shelter and those without safety of food and drink.

And inflation only occurs when there's an excess of money. If people can't afford to pay for something, they will reduce prices, because noone will buy from them.

As for jobs, do all jobs do things which actually improve the lifestyle of the job-doer or the person being serviced? A recession is a decline in activity which may be unsustainable in the long run - if we look past our own lives and into the future, should we believe in its existence and value it, we should decide perhaps with a little more hesitance if we need the things we consume unsustainably and whether the things we think are sustainable really are. An attempt to create jobs is really an attempt to create supply/demand where there may (note may, I'm not saying that government creation of jobs is inherently bad) well be NONE.

Yes, all jobs improve our lifestyle thanks to money. Money to buy food and drink and pay for shelter. Money to go out to the cinema, buy videogames etc.

Jobs wouldn't be created if it doesn't service anyone. As long as someone wants to buy something there's demand. And if there's demand, someone will supply for money. A job isn't just created and demand appears from nowhere.

What is happening in Libya (in English names of countries are usually spelled with a capital letter out of respect) if not a war? Officially it's called a "kinetic action", but is that not just a euphemism for war? More than 1000 people have been killed, so it more than meets the definition of a war in international relations. Does it not count if the people who died had a different religion from you, or a different skin color?

It is a war, but if you note my wording I said it is not a major one. Your involvement in it is far less than say, vietnam or afghanistan.

As for your point about Iraq, President Obama promised that he would end the US occupation in that country in his first year. Although he has withdrawn some troops, they have just gone to Afghanistan and the occupation in both countries continues to this day. Based on his earlier promises, I don't see how this can be called anything but a failure.

He declared the end of "combat operations", and withdrew most of the troops. All that's left is 40000 or so to help with the rebuilding. leaving Iraq to rot after we invaded them would be much more morally worse.

This is one place where I can't disagree with you completely. The current global economic crisis would not be nearly so acute if it were not for the blind policies of previous presidents. But how can you turn that into apologetics for the current president when there has been no substantial change in economic and financial policy under his administration? Bill Clinton and George W. Bush may have laid most of the foundations for the collapse, but that doesn't mean others didn't contribute as well.

I don't pay much attention to US politics and stuff because I'm english. My response was to the generalisation that it was Obama's fault for the continued recession. Had he had complaints about his specific policies which he feels could be improved, I would have said nothing for I am ignorant of that. I am NOT ignorant, however, of the fact that this recession is particularly bad, and no one person could probably have changed that. Simply saying "there's still a recession going on so Obama sucks" is utter bullshit.

I don't know if you were following the news back in 2008 and 2009, but if you were you'll remember that one of the first things President Obama did after his inauguration was to continue the proud Bushian tradition of giving his biggest campaign contributors all the money they asked for in so-called bailouts or stimulus packages. I could go into this more in depth, but that would take a while because it's complicated. In the meantime, I'll give you this article from the mainstream media as proof that I'm not pulling anything out of my ass: 8 Trillion Dollar Bailout.

Again, I'm english so I don't pay this much attention to his decision nor will I participate in a Obama vs Paul debate for I know very little of them.

What's preferable, a little deflation or massive inflation? It's the latter that's going to happen when you print trillions of dollars, even if you never give the dollars to the people who have to use it to pay for everyday necessities. On the other hand, a little deflation would benefit consumers in the US since it would strengthen the dollar and the US is primarily an importer country. Only private financial institutions are hurt by inflation.

You are 54 trillion dollars in debt (at least according to teh US debt clock, I have no idea how reliable that is, but I'm going with it). That isn't just a little deflation, that's quite severe. And printing money can be beneficial to a country in some scenarios as well.

Also, deflation runs the risk of falling into a deflationary spiral, where due to lower prices, less can be afforded to be given out in wages, reducing the money levels of workers. This means they have less money to buy essentials so shops would have to reduce prices and it goes into this neverending loop. As the US imports most of its goods, it will no longer have the funds necessary to support such importation any longer as the business which import them no longer make any money from it.

First off, Ron Paul is in favor of legalizing cannabis, not making it illegal. In fact, he's in favor of ending the drug war altogether and you can't really address one piece of the drug war without addressing the rest.

I meant to say legalisebut obviosuly confused myself. Regardless, in this day and age, if you're voting because of the stance of drugs, then you need to set your priorities straight.

Second, why should people who want to see the drug war ended not be allowed to vote? After its poorly thought-out military engagements abroad and the endemic "quid pro quo" style corruption among Republicans and Democrats, the drug war is one of the biggest follies bankrupting the United States today. And when you look at law and justice specifically, it's by far the biggest. I recommend you check out this page called the Drug War Clock. It gives a few useful statistics and barely even scratches the surface.

It's not that they shouldn't be allowed to vote, it's that they need to realise that getting high of marijuana is not the most pressing issue your country is facing.

Who are "the troops"? The US military still maintains almost a thousand bases in more than a hundred other countries' territory all around the world and almost half a million military personnel are stationed at them. Don't believe my statistics? Check Google or Wikipedia for yourself.

I don't doubt that, but they aren't really wars and obama has brought troops back and has not started any major wars. So again "more wars" is unjustified.

What good are taxes to the government if the government wastes all the money from them in "stimulus packages", corrupt military contracts, private planes for officials and in general every unproductive use you can imagine? Better to cut frivolous spending than to bleed the people dry for the benefit of a small elite.

At this stage it just looks like you're making propaganda straight from Ron Paul's administrations mouth.

Regardless, this is an issue with the government itself, and not taxes.

A better way of living? But the standard of living has lowered during the time of the Obama administration and even if other factors contributed to that President Obama is still far from inculpable for it!

That statement had nothing to do with politics whatsoever, and was firmly directed at severians deluded belief that jobs are bad and recessions are good.

Again, I'd appreciate a prompt response to all of my questions if you plan to keep reading and posting in this thread. I hope this post has done something to clear your misconceptions.

I had no misconceptions hero, I just merely had complaints about his generalisations about the world as it is today which are simply not true.

[Lord Raven]

It's not that they shouldn't be allowed to vote, it's that they need to realise that getting high of marijuana is not the most pressing issue your country is facing.

It would help a lot, though. We waste shitloads of money on the drug war and we mainly fail at it- only to block marijuana. I can't remember the exact figure we're shitting out on the drug war off the top of my head but it's a stupidly large amount (not enough to cure our crisis, we need some sort of fucking miracle for that, but still). Add to the fact that a *large* majority of people are in jail for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. A very large majority; I think a solid 75% of inmates (or some massive percent) are there because of something related to marijuana. It also costs ~35K/yr to keep an inmate in jail, so just imagine how much we could save per year. In fact, investing that money into more financial aid for people could help too because it's enough to give two people near-full rides to an in-state college every year, and one person a full ride to an out-of-state college (per year).

On top of the other "marijuana isnt as dangerous as people think" arguments that are just overdone at this point.

Still not saying it's going to fix everything- I'm not stupid nor am I that idealistic- but it's a strangely bigger issue than things like abortion and gay marriage.

[Anouleth]

I think the point is that while it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the War on Drugs due to the massive expense and the result of imprisoning such a huge number of people without actually reducing drug use, that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with legalising it. One might think that drug use should still be illegal, but oppose the way in which drug laws are enforced. And similarly, someone might vote purely because they want to get high, rather than because they actually care about any of the people's lives who are affected by the War on Drugs.

[Lord Raven]

The point was that it wasn't important since the economy was in the dump, my point is that every little bit counts.